plan_complexity

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the level controls which phases run. However, it does not mention side effects like storing plan state, requiring a session_id from plan_intent, or the ability to overwrite via is_revision. These gaps prevent a higher score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The phase identification is front-loaded, and the level-to-phase mapping is stated concisely. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters, no outputs schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the level's impact but does not describe the tool's return value, the requirement for a prior plan_intent session, or how downstream tools use this output. The phase mapping is useful but not sufficient for full contextual understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the level parameter's effect on phases (Level 1 = phases 1-3, etc.). This is valuable semantic content not present in the schema's simple 'Complexity 1-3'. Other parameters remain adequately documented by the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Assess' and resource 'search complexity' with an explicit range (1-3). It also identifies itself as 'Phase 2', which differentiates it from sibling tools like plan_intent (Phase 1) and plan_execution (later phase). The mapping of levels to phases adds specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by labeling this as 'Phase 2' and explaining that the level 'Controls required phases', implying when it should be called (after plan_intent) and its consequence. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.